I guess - but I'd argue that the quality of our backups is pretty good. Lombo is a great backup on 2B, Espi filled in very well for Desi, Tracy does fine at 3B, and Moore seems to be just as competent as LaRoche. I could understand some complaints about the bullpen though.

What's the problem with depth? We have 3 catchers, 4 first basemen, 2 second basemen, 2 shortstops, 2 third basemen, and way to many outfielders to count - and they're all playing pretty well. We got Izturis to cover in the infield until Desmond got better. We got Suzuki to help our ailing catcher rotation.

Just wondering, where would we have added more depth, and how would it help the team? Are you looking more towards the pitching staff?

I'm just frustrated that with a WS all but in our grasp that we didn't do anything to distance ourselves from teams like the Reds and Braves. We have another bad series against the Dodgers and we're looking at a two or three game lead with 13 to go. And even if we win the division I'd much rather play the WC team that has just used their ace as opposed to flying to San Francisco for two games.

This team has a line-up deep enough to take injuries to Morse, Storen, Werth, Ramos, Desmond, Ryan Zimmerman / LaRoche ("only" out a couple of weeks). The Nats have had six major-league starters. The bull-pen is deep, and got better when HRod went out. Christian Garcia might be a great help, although he probably needs more work in the majors to get comfortable. Only relief worry is Burnett, who might not be recovered from a sore elbow.

In spite of the injuries, the Nats increased their lead while other teams scrambled to dump lazy or useless players -- Fillies and Marlins -- or traded to approach the Nats level.

The opponents are tough? Sure, and the Nats have to beat them: now and later.

This team has a line-up deep enough to take injuries to Morse, Storen, Werth, Ramos, Desmond, Ryan Zimmerman / LaRoche ("only" out a couple of weeks). The Nats have had six major-league starters. The bull-pen is deep, and got better when HRod went out. Christian Garcia might be a great help, although he probably needs more work in the majors to get comfortable. Only relief worry is Burnett, who might not be recovered from a sore elbow.

In spite of the injuries, the Nats increased their lead while other teams scrambled to dump lazy or useless players -- Fillies and Marlins -- or traded to approach the Nats level.

The opponents are tough? Sure, and the Nats have to beat them: now and later.

If I'm a GM and I've got a first place team and an owner telling me I've got cash available I'm going to find a way to improve the club.

Even if it sets us back for 2013.

We just got our asses handed to us by our likely first round opponent. There's a long way to go but don't tell me that all is well.

If I'm a GM and I've got a first place team and an owner telling me I've got cash available I'm going to find a way to improve the club.

Even if it sets us back for 2013.

We just got our asses handed to us by our likely first round opponent. There's a long way to go but don't tell me that all is well.

Despite all the screaming the Nats didn't "improve" themselves at the deadline, something they did do a couple of weeks later, btw, they've maintained the best record in baseball through it all. If you've got a team that's been able to maintain that, why the heck would you want to do something to set us back for 2013? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Can't call the Lerners cheap on this one, it's all on Rizzo. Sure the Nats will be playing meaningful games in September and October, but it certainly would have been nice to have added some depth just in case some of our hitters got banged up, or if some of our arms wore down, or if we decided to go loco and voluntarily shut our guys down. Guess we're just happy to be in the playoffs this year, maybe next year we'll try to contend.

July 31st

Quote

“All along we said we like who we are, and we like where we’re at and we like the composition of the roster,” Rizzo said. “We didn’t see a whole lot of holes to fill. It’s not about complacency, but it’s about making good, sound decisions – not taking the short route with rental players that could affect us long-term. We feel we’re in position to play meaningful games this September and beyond and there wasn’t a whole lot of necessity to make a deal.”

Across the National League, other contenders upgraded – of the seven NL clubs with the best records, only the Nationals did not make a trade.

After the games of July 31, Nats were 61-41 and 2.5 games ahead of the Braves.As of today, the Nats are 89-57 and 5.0 games ahead of the Braves.

It would appear that sticking with the existing roster was the right move for us.

But to say that the Nats made the right move to not add a player due to their great record after the fact is like saying it was the right move to walk the weak hitter and load the bases for Barry Bonds, just because you got him out.

The right thought process and the right results are two different things.

But to say that the Nats made the right move to not add a player due to their great record after the fact is like saying it was the right move to walk the weak hitter and load the bases for Barry Bonds, just because you got him out.

The right thought process and the right results are two different things.

The situation is not remotely the same. Nobody would walk the bases loaded to get to Barry Bonds.

Nats have the best record in baseball, a very tight, close knit clubhouse, depth at every position, players that contribute from every position, and a strong bench. The BIG problem was catcher and that was addressed by Suzuki (which was a really good pick up that didn't cost any players or picks)

The deadline moves they made (and didn't make) are fine. That wouldn't have been the deciding factor down the stretch here anyway.

And if you look at this abstractly - the Nats added Jayson Werth, Drew Storen and Chad Tracy at the deadline as well ... so to speak

What evidence is there to say they wouldn't have done even better with an extra bullpen arm or bench bat.

There isn't any one way or the other, but there is justification, right or wrong, in the fact that the team has continued to play well and maintain and in some cases play better than they were playing at the deadline. That said, adding Suzuki has improved this team.

What arm and bat are you talking about? And who goes when you add them?

The Nats are the best team possible, from one to 25, and no amount of Lerner money or horse trading sense would have conceivably improved the team. So if we fall short of a WS this year it just wasn't fated to be, unlike next year and beyond when we shall be crowned by devine right.

The Nats are the best team possible, from one to 25, and no amount of Lerner money or horse trading sense would have conceivably improved the team. So if we fall short of a WS this year it just wasn't fated to be, unlike next year and beyond when we shall be crowned by devine right.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Your incessant negativity is unbearable. But by all means, continue to wallow in all the terrible things that haven't happened

Suzuki was a big salary pick up for the stretch drive, even with some relief from the As. There is a reason he was not claimed and that other contenders that could use catching help like Tampa Bay let him through. One move is not a Steinbrenner in his prime spree, but there is something to a decision that Lannan probably was as useful as any guy that could be picked up without stripping the system. Dempster, maybe Garza, would have been nice, but short of that, would you have rather had Beckett or Lannan? Maybe some bullpen pieces would have helped too. Sure he could have done more, but I can't think of a lot of specifics where I kicked myself.